Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30630434›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

Multiple imputation methods for handling missing values in a longitudinal categorical variable with restrictions on transitions over time: a simulation study.

Anurika Priyanjali De Silva, Margarita Moreno-Betancur, Alysha Madhu De Livera, Katherine Jane Lee, Julie Anne Simpson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anurika Priyanjali De SilvaCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. anurikad@student.unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-0541-3202
Margarita Moreno-BetancurCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Alysha Madhu De LiveraCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Katherine Jane LeeClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Julie Anne SimpsonCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLongitudinal categorical variables are sometimes restricted in terms of how individuals transition between categories over time. For example, with a time-dependent measure of smoking categorised as never-smoker, ex-smoker, and current-smoker, current-smokers or ex-smokers cannot transition to a never-smoker at a subsequent wave. These longitudinal variables often contain missing values, however, there is little guidance on whether these restrictions need to be accommodated when using multiple imputation methods. Multiply imputing such missing values, ignoring the restrictions, could lead to implausible transitions.

methodsWe designed a simulation study based on the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, where the target analysis was the association between (incomplete) maternal smoking and childhood obesity. We set varying proportions of data on maternal smoking to missing completely at random or missing at random. We compared the performance of fully conditional specification with multinomial and ordinal logistic imputation, and predictive mean matching, two-fold fully conditional specification, indicator based imputation under multivariate normal imputation with projected distance-based rounding, and continuous imputation under multivariate normal imputation with calibration, where each of these multiple imputation methods were applied, accounting for the restrictions using a semi-deterministic imputation procedure.

resultsOverall, we observed reduced bias when applying multiple imputation methods with restrictions, and fully conditional specification with predictive mean matching performed the best. Applying fully conditional specification and two-fold fully conditional specification for imputing nominal variables based on multinomial logistic regression had severe convergence issues. Both imputation methods under multivariate normal imputation produced biased estimates when restrictions were not accommodated, however, we observed substantial reductions in bias when restrictions were applied with continuous imputation under multivariate normal imputation with calibration.

conclusionIn a similar longitudinal setting we recommend the use of fully conditional specification with predictive mean matching, with restrictions applied during the imputation stage.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyModels, StatisticalAlgorithmsAustraliaComputer SimulationData CollectionData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaternal ExposurePediatric ObesityProspective StudiesResearch DesignSmokingFully conditional specificationLongitudinal categorical dataMissing dataMultiple imputationMultivariate normal imputationRestricted transitions

Identifiers

PMID30630434
PMCPMC6329074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.